Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France

[Athos]

Do you think it's necessary to do that?

I tell you what, you answer my question, then I'll answer yours.

'Who determines whether or not something is an insult, or whether or not it is needless, and how?'

 

[Spymaster]

I tell you what, you answer my question, then I'll answer yours.

'Who determines whether or not something is an insult, or whether or not it is needless, and how?'

If you answer mine you'll answer yours.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not answering that question spy cos it makes no sense. I'll answer another one though. I think it is necessary to oppose Islamism.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

I'm not answering that question spy cos it makes no sense. I'll answer another one though. I think it is necessary to oppose Islamism.

We agree. I just don't understand how you plan to oppose islamism. Given it is also a movement against the muslim working class. but they have no agency right? Instead of calling them gammons and racists call them homophobes and head choppers, and then single out a few you like the cut of. That's not how this works.

 

[Athos]

If you answer mine you'll answer yours.

OK, then I my answer is: it may be necessary to some people to insult some other people's religious sensibilities to make a point.

Now you:

'Who determines whether or not something is an insult, or whether or not it is needless, and how?'

 

[Spymaster]

I'm not answering that question spy cos it makes no sense.

You're not answering it because you can see where I'm going with it.

You've repeatedly accused me and others of blaming the Hebdo guys for their murders and equated them not doing what they did with appeasement of fundamentalism. I know that you disagree with people becoming police officers so do you blame Keith Palmer for his murder? After all if he hadn't joined the police he wouldn't have been killed.

That is what you are accusing us of.

 

[Spymaster]

OK, then I my answer is: it may be necessary to some people to insult some other people's religious sensibilities to make a point.

Now you:

'Who determines whether or not something is an insult, or whether or not it is needless, and how?'

I think anyone who feels insulted by anything has the right to stand up and say "please don't do that" and be given measured consideration by the rest of society. That is not to say that everyone has to agree with them.

Travelling today. See you all later.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

I raised this point about 40 pages ago, as have others. I think we’ve had our answer. There will be no solidarity offered to the murdered worker. In fact, there are questions to be asked about whether he theoretically deserves any anyway. Instead, the debate is about the best way to build links and solidarity with an imagined homogeneous group.

This thread is stinking

It's just 1970s oh i have a black mate at work. replace with muslims. at the end of the day we're an alien homogenous people who deep down approve of the murder of the worker because we all think random vigilantes decide the punishments for blasphemy through some nebulous textual authority. This thread is proper dehumanising. Hint: people with conservative views are still capable of compassion.

 

[Athos]

I think anyone who feels insulted by anything has the right to stand up and say "please don't do that" and be given measured consideration by the rest of society. That is not to say that everyone has to agree with them.

Travelling today. See you all later.

That doesn't answer the question. Please would you have another go?

'Who determines whether or not something is an insult, or whether or not it is needless, and how?'

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So I've been listening to this again cos of this thread. Some people didn't get this song either.

I'll leave the thread with this for a bit.

Enjoy. Listen loud.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You're not answering it because you can see where I'm going with it.

You've repeatedly accused me and others of blaming the Hebdo guys for their murders and equated them not doing what they did with appeasement of fundamentalism. I know that you disagree with people becoming police officers so do you blame Keith Palmer for his murder? After all if he hadn't joined the police he wouldn't have been killed.

It's a ridiculous question. No I don't. And that goes whatever my wider opinions of the police force. It isn't the killer point you think it is.

 

[Spymaster]

That doesn't answer the question. Please would you have another go?

'Who determines whether or not something is an insult, or whether or not it is needless, and how?'

It did answer the question. The answer is everyone gets a say.

 

[Idris2002]

One of the rolling news channels mentioned in passing that one of those who put the finger on Paty was paid to do so by the killer.

 

[Spymaster]

No I don't.

Why not?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why not?

Ah I see. You expected me to say that and you're being Socratic.

 

[Spymaster]

Ah I see. You expected me to say that and you're being Socratic.

But still no answer.

Come on, it's a ridiculous question, you should be able to burn it down pretty quickly.

Why is it that if I'm critical of Hebdo for what they publish I'm blaming them for their murders, but if you're critical of Palmer for joining the police force you're not blaming him for his?

 

[ManchesterBeth]

vanity is always the soul of the liberal.

 

[Athos]

It did answer the question. The answer is everyone gets a say.

So we have loads of different opinions on whether or not something is an insult, and whether that is needless. Then what? How would you like to see that resolved as a society (bearing in mind there will be those at either end who will never meet in the middle)?

Essentially you have two choices; to limit free speech (including through self-censorship) to accommodate religious sensibilities, or to accept that free speech is worth paying the price of some people being offended.

It seems you favour the former, so where do you draw the line? What level of offence? Any? If not, why not?

Your (admittedly well-meaning) position just seems contradictory, unworkable, and a recepie for oppression.

 

[Pickman's model]

One of the rolling news channels mentioned in passing that one of those who put the finger on Paty was paid to do so by the killer.

Several according to some newspaper reports.

 

[Pickman's model]

So we have loads of different opinions on whether or not something is an insult, and whether that is needless. Then what? How would you like to see that resolved as a society (bearing in mind there will be those at either end who will never meet in the middle)?

Essentially you have two choices; to limit free speech to accommodate religious sensibilities, or to accept that free speech is worth paying the price of some people being offended.

It seems you favour the former, so where do you draw the line? What level of offence? Any? If not, why not?

Your (admittedly well-meaning) position just seems contradictory, unworkable, and a recepie for oppression.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

 

[Idris2002]

Several according to some newspaper reports.

Puts a different spin on things. Not a spontaneous outburst by outraged believers, if they had to be paid off to tout.

 

[Pickman's model]

Puts a different spin on things. Not a spontaneous outburst by outraged believers, if they had to be paid off to tout.

I wonder how many euros 30 pieces of silver buy these days

 

[Spymaster]

So we have loads of different opinions on whether or not something is an insult, and whether that is needless. Then what? How would you like to see that resolved as a society (bearing in mind there will be those at either end who will never meet in the middle)?

Essentially you have two choices; to limit free speech (including through self-censorship) to accommodate religious sensibilities, or to accept that free speech is worth paying the price of some people being offended.

It seems you favour the former, so where do you draw the line? What level of offence? Any? If not, why not?

Your (admittedly well-meaning) position just seems contradictory, unworkable, and a recepie for oppression.

I disagree. I see no contradiction in saying that you have a right to stand in a park and shout "all foreigners should be sent home", whilst believing that you'd be fucking stupid to do it and condemning anyone who shot you for it.

 

[Athos]

I disagree. I see no contradiction in saying that you have a right to stand in a park and shout "all foreigners should be sent home", whilst believing that you'd be fucking stupid to do it.

Do you think society should do all it could to protect that freedom?

 

[Serge Forward]

Back in the day it was the right who claimed that about the "Black and White Minstrels" and gollywogs jamjars.

What on earth are you on about? No one is defending the Black and White Minstrel Show or golliwogs on jam jars. And the right still hanker for that old racist muck anyway. But since when (and why) did the left become a bastion of ultra conservative anti-blasphemy politics?

I'd argue, as others have done, that it was when top-down multiculturalists and leftish identity politicos threw in their lot with the most reactionary elements within oppressed minorities, rather than with the most progressive (left, socialist, communist, feminist, LGBT) elements.

Possible reasons for this are many:

• for tactical and strategic reasons, building relationships with more visible and accessible community and religious leaders (most conservative elements) rather than with those "out of step" people who were fighting the good fight (feminists, communists, secular elements, etc);
• a poor understanding of how racism works and the tendency to co-opt the most regressive elements from among those most oppressed (this one's straight out of the old British imperial playbook);
• left opportunism (e.g. SWP seeing "Muslim yoof" as a fertile recruiting area);
• solidarity with people who happen to be from the "Muslim community" (sic) being attacked by the right morphing into a defence of Islam (of whatever variety). It's no coincidence that the accepted term for such bigotry is now "islamophobia" rather than "anti Muslim" oppression;
• forgetting the whole "class unity" bit about anti racism.

I'm sure people have got other points to add to the list of ways in which the left has shot itself in the foot.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

What on earth are you on about? No one is defending the Black and White Minstrel Show or golliwogs on jam jars. And the right still hanker for that old racist muck anyway. But since when (and why) did the left become a bastion of ultra conservative anti-blasphemy politics?

I'd argue, as others have done, that it was when top-down multiculturalists and leftish identity politicos threw in their lot with the most reactionary elements within oppressed minorities, rather than with the most progressive (left, socialist, communist, feminist, LGBT) elements.

Possible reasons for this are many:

• for tactical and strategic reasons, building relationships with more visible and accessible community and religious leaders (most conservative elements) rather than with those "out of step" people who were fighting the good fight (feminists, communists, secular elements, etc);
• a poor understanding of how racism works and the tendency to co-opt the most regressive elements from among those most oppressed (this one's straight out of the old British imperial playbook);
• left opportunism (e.g. SWP seeing "Muslim yoof" as a fertile recruiting area);
• solidarity with people who happen to be from the "Muslim community" (sic) being attacked by the right morphing into a defence of Islam (of whatever variety). It's no coincidence that the accepted term for such bigotry is now "islamophobia" rather than "anti Muslim" oppression;
• forgetting the whole "class unity" bit about anti racism.

I'm sure people have got other points to add to the list of ways in which the left has shot itself in the foot.

by being left legitimators of capital. You're assuming they are betraying ideals here. that is not the case.

Why are people resorting to a mythical strong socialist left which was then ruined by multiculturalism through opportunism? What is the point of being an anarchist or communist then? might as well liquidate one self in the labour party if everything is just subjective opportunism and not inherent to the functioning of certain political fractions.

 

[tim]

What on earth are you on about? No one is defending the Black and White Minstrel Show or golliwogs on jam jars. And the right still hanker for that old racist muck anyway. But since when (and why) did the left become a bastion of ultra conservative anti-blasphemy politics?

I'd argue, as others have done, that it was when top-down multiculturalists and leftish identity politicos threw in their lot with the most reactionary elements within oppressed minorities, rather than with the most progressive (left, socialist, communist, feminist, LGBT) elements.

Possible reasons for this are many:

• for tactical and strategic reasons, building relationships with more visible and accessible community and religious leaders (most conservative elements) rather than with those "out of step" people who were fighting the good fight (feminists, communists, secular elements, etc);
• a poor understanding of how racism works and the tendency to co-opt the most regressive elements from among those most oppressed (this one's straight out of the old British imperial playbook);
• left opportunism (e.g. SWP seeing "Muslim yoof" as a fertile recruiting area);
• solidarity with people who happen to be from the "Muslim community" (sic) being attacked by the right morphing into a defence of Islam (of whatever variety). It's no coincidence that the accepted term for such bigotry is now "islamophobia" rather than "anti Muslim" oppression;
• forgetting the whole "class unity" bit about anti racism.

I'm sure people have got other points to add to the list of ways in which the left has shot itself in the foot.

I'm on about the fact that those cartoons stereotype and demean Arabs, in the same way that gollywogs and the "Black and White Minstrels" stereotype and demean. I don't see why they should be defended by anyone on the left.

 

[Athos]

I'm on about the fact that those cartoons stereotype and demean Arabs, in the same way that gollywogs and the "Black and White Minstrels" stereotype and demean. I don't see why they should be defended by anyone on the left.

But, if they weren't racist caricatures (big noses and turbans), you'd defend them, notwithstanding they'd still offend many simply by portraying Mohammed?

 

[Spymaster]

Do you think society should do all it could to protect that freedom?

The right to cause deliberate offence is not a hill I’d die on, tbh, and I think nuance is important. Whilst I’d fiercely defend and encourage the right to challenge religious homophobia, I think people who write shit like TLTDNSIN, are being needlessly provocative and should think twice before doing it. That’s not to say I’d blame them for their murder if someone crucified them.

 

[Serge Forward]

I'm on about the fact that those cartoons stereotype and demean Arabs, in the same way that gollywogs and the "Black and White Minstrels" stereotype and demean. I don't see why they should be defended by anyone on the left.

I'd agree, the caricatures did look a bit dodgy, but I don't think the intent was to make racist cartoons but actually the opposite, to have a dig at racist stereotypes. But these things tend to have a life of their own and will get used by racists. Same with Alf Garnet - Johnny Speight's dig at racist working class Tories became a real racist folk hero and his sayings were a constant nightmare for many Black and Asian people living through the 60s and 70s in Britain. Any image, particularly satirical ones will always be perceived in various ways, used and misused, depending on the attitudes of the person viewing it.

So, back to the question, when and why did "the left" become a bastion of anti-blasphemy politics?